gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Kata Markon
List archive
- From: JFAlward AT aol.com
- To: gmark AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
- Subject: Re: Critique of Gibson's Paper
- Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 15:41:57 EDT
JOE ALWARD
The following is a copy of a post I sent off-list to a Kata Markon
correspondent:
..............................................................................
.....................................
Thank you for the polite and thoughtful letter. While I still hold Jeff's
views in low regard, I nevertheless understand from your post that persons
are unhappy with my tone, and will take to heart your hope that I moderate
myself when I address the forum.
Now, you've noted that I have failed to address adequately Jeff's argument
about peirasmos, but I hope you also have noted he has not responded well to
my claims that the connection between the antecedent text and the dependent
text is broken with his claim that the dependent text's message is that God
must not be tested. There is nothing like this in the antecedent.
In addition, Jeff has not responded well to my assertion that the contexts of
the first and second parable make is clear that the message in both cases was
that after seventy years of waiting for Jesus' return, people must
nevertheless still remain patient. They must not close their eyes, for Jesus
might return at any time. In this context, it is self-evident that the
message in Mark 14:38 is that the disciples are to pray to God that they
withstand the body's test of their will not to close their eyes. Jeff seems
to want ignore the obvious in favor of an interpretation based largely his
analysis of one Greek word. If Jeff wants me to concentrate on his analysis
of peirasmos, then should he not first try to explain, if he can, why the
obvious message of both parables NOT that the faithful should remain patient?
Jeff's interpretation also doesn't explain well "the body (flesh) is weak."
Context makes it self-evident that the disciples were to pray to God for the
willpower to overcome the weak body's need for sleep, or, alternatively to
pray to be given the physical strength to stay awake while they waited for
Jesus. The "weak body" makes almost no sense in the context of praying that
they not test God.
Thank you for your helpful comments. It is obvious that they were sincere
and well-intended. If you believe that there are simple explanations which
could address my concerns about Jeff's thesis, I would be happy to hear from
you. I would prefer that correspondence be done in public, but if you wish
to do this privately, that would be fine with me.
Regards,
Joe
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph F. Alward, PhD (Solid State Physics)
Department of Physics
University of the Pacific
Stockton, California 95201
email: JFAlward AT aol.com
-
Re: Critique of Gibson's Paper,
JFAlward, 10/22/2002
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: Critique of Gibson's Paper, Kym Smith, 10/22/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.